Term: 2009
Docket: 08-1301
Thomas Carr v. United States
- Pro
08-1301 CARR V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 551 F.3d 578 CERT. GRANTED 9/30/2009 QUESTION PRESENTED: The President signed the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA") into law on July 27, 2006. Pub. L. 109-248 §§101-55, 120 Stat. 587. SORNA requires persons who are convicted of certain offenses to register with state and federal databases. See 42 U.S.C. § 16913(a). The law imposes criminal penalties of up to ten years of imprisonment on anyone who "is required to register * * * travels in interstate or foreign commerce * * * and knowingly fails to register or update a registration." 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). On February 28, 2007, the Attorney General retroactively applied SORNA's registration requirements to persons who were convicted before July 27, 2006. 72 Fed. Reg. 8896, codified at 28 C.F.R. § 72.3. The two questions presented are: 1. Whether a person may be criminally prosecuted under § 2250(a) for failure to register when the defendant's underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated SORNA's enactment. 2. Whether the Ex Post Facto Clause precludes prosecution under § 2250(a) of a person whose underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated SORNA's enactment. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-2008
In the case of Thomas Carr v. United States, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a provision of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) did not apply to sex offenders who moved interstate before SORNA was enacted in 2006. The defendant, Thomas Carr, had been convicted for a sex offense in Alabama and later moved to Indiana after serving his sentence but failed to register as a sex offender upon moving there. He was then charged under SORNA which requires all existing sex offenders to register in any state they move into regardless of when their conviction occurred. However, Carr argued that he could not be prosecuted because he moved before SORNA came into effect. In an opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor on behalf of seven justices with two concurring opinions from Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas respectively; it was held that based on statutory interpretation principles including legislative intent behind enacting such laws; Congress intended this requirement only for those who traveled interstate post-SORNA's enactment thus ruling in favor of Mr.Carr.
In the dissenting opinion for Thomas Carr v. United States, Justice Scalia argued that the majority misinterpreted the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). He believed that SORNA did not apply to sex offenders who moved interstate before its enactment in 2006. According to him, a plain reading of SORNA's text suggests it only applies to those who move after its implementation. Furthermore, he contended that if Congress intended for SORNA to have retroactive application, they would have explicitly stated so within the statute itself. Therefore, he disagreed with applying penalties under this law retrospectively without clear legislative intent.
